DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 as shown in fig. 4 (claims 1-15, 17-20 readable thereon, claim 16 withdrawn) in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because mere allegation of lack of burden is an opinion. Applicant has not explained the supposed errors of the species requirement, since each embodiment is independent and distinct the election requirement is being maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said first through hole” and “said second through hole” at lines 3-5. It is unclear as to what element said limitation is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US PGPub 2012/0025244; hereinafter “Suh”) in view of Kondo (US PGPub 2017/0186918).
Re claim 1: Suh teaches (e.g. fig. 3) a face-up light-emitting device, comprising: a substrate (21, 23) which has a first surface (upper surface of 23; hereinafter “1S”) and a second surface (lower surface of 21; hereinafter “2S”) opposite to said first surface (1S); a semiconductor stacked structure (30) which is disposed on said first surface (1S) and is capable of emitting light (light emitting structure 30; e.g. paragraph 39); and a first insulating stacked structure (distributed Bragg reflector 37 formed by alternately stacking material layers having different indices of refraction, for example, a SiO2 layer and a TiO2 layer; e.g. paragraph 39, 57) which is disposed on said semiconductor stacked structure (30) and which includes first material layers (SiO2 of 37) each of which has a refractive index, and second material layers (TiO2 of 37) each of which has a refractive index higher (SiO2 has a refractive index lower than TiO2) than that of each of said first material layers (SiO2 of 37), said first material layers (SiO2 of 37) and said second material layers (TiO2 of 37) being stacked alternately.
Suh is silent as to be explicitly teaching first insulating stacked structure (37) having a geometric thickness which ranges from 500 nm to 1000 nm.
Kondo teaches (e.g. fig. 2A) the first insulating stacked structure (DBR film 14a; e.g. paragraph 30) having a geometric thickness which ranges from 500 nm to 1000 nm (DBR can be formed to have a total thickness of 0.2 to 1 µm; e.g. paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the DBR thickness as taught by Kondo in the device of Suh in order to have the predictable result simplifying manufacture by using a known thickness capable of reflecting a desired wavelength of light.
Re claim 2: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first metal electrode (35) and a second metal electrode (33) which are disposed on said semiconductor stacked structure (30), said first metal electrode (35) including a first wire bonding portion (upper surface portion of 35) which has a first upper surface (upper surface of 35), said second metal electrode (33) including a second wire bonding portion (upper surface portion of 33) which has a second upper surface (upper surface portion 33), said first insulating stacked structure (37) covering (37 covers side surfaces of 35, 33) said first metal electrode (35) and said second metal electrode (33), and having through holes (holes in 37 that provide the locations for 35, 33) that respectively expose said first upper surface (upper surface of 35) and said second upper surface (upper surface of 33).
Re claim 3: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 2, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) has a first hole-defining wall (hole defining wall for 35; hereinafter “1HDW”) and a second hole-defining wall (hole defining wall for 33; hereinafter “2HDW”), said first hole-defining wall (1HDW) defining said first through hole (hole for 35; hereinafter “1TH”) and having a first top edge (top edge of 1TH; hereinafter “1TE”), said second hole-defining wall (2HDW) defining said second through hole (hole for 33; hereinafter “2TH”) and having a second top edge (top edge of 2TH; hereinafter “2TE”), a horizontal distance (right 1TE to left 1TE is the width of 35 and is approximately 10µm; e.g. paragraph 40 implies the edge length of 21 is 300 µm) between said first top edge (1TE) and a periphery of said first upper surface (upper surface of 35) ranging from 2µm to 10µm, a horizontal distance (right 2TE to left 2TE is the width of 35 and is approximately 10µm; e.g. paragraph 40 implies the edge length is 300 µm) between said second top edge (2TE) and a periphery of said second upper surface (upper surface of 33) ranging from 2µm to 10µm.
Re claim 4: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) has a reflectance greater than 90% to a light having a wavelength ranging from 430 nm to 460 nm and having an incident angle ranging from 0* to 10* (MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that when a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present).
Re claim 5: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 4, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) has a reflectance less than 50% to a light having a wavelength ranging from 500 nm to 700 nm and having an incident angle ranging from 0* to 10* (MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that when a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present).
Re claim 6: Suh in view of Kondo teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) includes X number of layer units each having one of said first material layers and an adjacent one of said second material layers (DBR is constructed having two to five sets of dielectric multilayer pairs; e.g. paragraph 30 of Kondo), and 3≤X≤10.
Re claim 7: Suh in view of Kondo teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure further includes a base layer which has a geometric thickness ranging from 50 nm to 400 nm (four sets with a total thickness of 900 nm would have each layer, including the lowest layer, of being 112.5nm each; e.g. paragraph 30).
Re claim 8: Suh in view of Kondo teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of said first material layers has a geometric thickness ranging from 50 nm to 100 nm, and each of said second material layers has a geometric thickness ranging from 30 nm to 60 nm (four sets with a total thickness of 450 nm would have each layer being 56.25nm each; e.g. paragraph 30).
Re claim 9: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 6, further comprising a reflecting structure (40) disposed on said second surface (2S) of said substrate (21, 23), said reflecting structure (40) including first reflecting layers and second reflecting layers stacked alternately (alternately stacked layers with different indices of refraction; e.g. paragraph 45), and having a geometric thickness greater than (40 is thicker than 37) that of said first insulating stacked structure (37).
Re claim 10: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 9, wherein said reflecting structure includes Y number of layer units (40 is thicker than 37) each having one of said first reflecting layers and an adjacent one of said second reflecting layers, and Y>X (40 is thicker than 37 and would have a higher number of layers).
Re claim 11: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein said reflecting structure has a reflectance greater than 90% to a light having a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 700 nm and having an incident angle ranging from 0* to 10* (MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that when a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present).
Re claim 12: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the geometric thickness of said reflecting structure (40) is greater than two times (as shown in fig. 3, 40 is twice the thickness of 37) of the geometric thickness of said first insulating stacked structure (37).
Re claim 13: Suh in view of Konda teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the geometric thickness of said reflecting structure ranges from 3 µm to 6 µm and Y≤15 (as shown in fig. 3 of Suh, 40 is twice the thickness of 37; therefore Konda’s teaching of two to five sets of alternating layers would have the Y to be less than 15 layers).
Re claim 14: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein 30≤Y≤60 (as shown in fig. 3 of Suh, 40 is twice the thickness of 37; therefore Konda’s teaching of two to five sets of alternating layers would have the Y to be less than 15 layers; however, a thicker DRB would be more capable of better reflecting a broader spectrum of light, and would have been obvious to make greater than 15 pairs of layers).
Re claim 15: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said substrate (21, 23) has a thickness greater than 80 µm (paragraph 40 implies the edge length of 21 is 300µm, therefore it is apparent that the thickness of 21, 23 is approximately 100µm).
Re claim 17: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said semiconductor stacked structure (30) includes a first semiconductor layer (25), an active layer (27), and a second semiconductor layer (29) that are disposed on said substrate (21, 23) in such order.
Re claim 18: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17, wherein a periphery of said first insulating stacked structure (37) is flush with a periphery of said first semiconductor layer (25).
Re claim 19: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 18, wherein said substrate (21, 23) has a length and a width, said length to said width being in a ratio not less than 2:1 (the ratio of the length of 21, 23 in the vertical direction to the width in the horizontal direction is approximately 3:1).
Re claim 20: Suh teaches a display device comprising a face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1 (fig. 7 shows a display device).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US10,453,999 to Huang et al., US2016/0079467 to Totani, US2019/0386180 to Hwang et al., US2018/0145216 to Lee et al. shows similar structures of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898